OP is right, but it's about finding the balance.

Everyone knows that competition breeds quality. I'm an ardent socialist, even I have to - reluctantly - concede this. The more competition for places the better.

With numerous top quality Aussies and Kiwis playing in the SL, the quality of the SL is improved, the quality of the English(and British, and French) players coming through is higher.

The problems have already been outlined though. You don't want too many Aussies and Kiwis, what good is a higher quality group of English players if they're too few in number; plus it isn't good for the game at lower levels. So theoretically there's limits on how many foreign players it takes before it goes the other way and their presence is harmful. The other more relevant issue as Smokey points out, with the salary cap we're not going to get the best, we're going to get mainly less than ordinary NRL players, or old NRL players, so lifting the quota doesn't raise the standards, not unless we raise the cap at the same time.

Ideally we could raise the salary cap and every team would be able to manage, and we could therefore change the quota and start to bringing in some real great players. But that isn't going to happen I don't think, I can't see our salary cap being at a level where we can do that. So there's two choices, you flood the competition with average players who don't really add much at all, as Smokey mentions. Or you lift the salary cap regardless and the competition becomes more uneven than ever, and teams collapse in on themselves trying to match it with the big boys.

You're bang on the money OP in what you say, you only have to see how good the Kiwis have become and how quickly they've done it, and mainly it's because their players are in the NRL amongst the best. It's just not feasible to bring in great NRL players to the SL, you'd open up a world of more damning problems and we'd never cope

It could maybe be raised a little but the gap between SL and NRL and union is too big for any minor change in salary cap to make anything more than a minor difference.

Is the reward worth the risk? At best by raising the cap a little we can rewind the clock a handful of years. Not worth it right now (I don't think(

I've long said that the reduction in the overseas quota was detrimental to the game in this country. Even more so when the RFL slashed the allowed numbers while at the same time increasing the number of teams in SL.

It's been this long standing argument that some how the overseas players playing in SL were stopping GB competing in the international arena. Which quite frankly is crap. We've been cutting the overseas quota year on year and we're still no better, an an argument could be made that we've gone backwards, at beating the Aussies.

Rovers are only 100k below.

Is that a little flexibility so you can bend the rules again
baldy out prop in, prop out........

I make it that the clubs have the following number of "foreign" players:
Bradford - 6
Castleford - 5
Catalans - 8
Huddersfield - 4
Hull FC - 6
Hull KR - 9
Leeds - 5
London - 10
Salford - 4
St Helens - 7
Wakefield - 5
Widnes - 7
Wigan - 4

Which adds up to 80. Now no doubt Salford might have had a couple more in with the new owner but from what I remember from previous years that's a drop of around 10-15. The non-fed trained rules have obviously had an effect (and will continue to bite over the next few years as those with exemptions retire/go back to Aus) but I don't think it's such a cut in numbers as to worry about, there is still plenty of scope for clubs to sign overseas players.
There has also been a big shift recently in 4 other major factors. The Border Agency stance on Visas, HMRC's stance on image rights and EBT's, the NRL salary cap and the exchange rate. All of these, rather than any rule the RFL has brought in, have drastically reduced a SL clubs ability to sign a top NRL player. Which is why we are seeing more average overseas signings and younger NRL players (like Achurch or Gelling) trying to prove themselves here. So whilst these factors are against SL it's probably a good thing there is an additional rule in place restricting overseas signings (the non-fed trained rule) rather than just the easy to get around Overseas Quota.
I think I'd also be in favour of some kind of marquee signing exemption but make it they have to have come from either Union or the NRL so clubs can't use it to sign players from each other.

Add
Mike Monaghan
Joel Monaghan
Brett Hodgson
&
Trent Waterhouse to that list too

So arguably the 3 of the most successful teams in recent years (Wigan, Warrington and Leeds) Have the least over seas players...

The lack of over seas players is making the league dour? But the best teams have amongst the fewest? Kind of conflicts?

Saddy, i can't believe this post.
Some clubs still have 8 or 9 overseas players, is that not enough ?
Do you really want more Brett Seymour's ?
FFS, what is wrong creating more opportunities for home grown players and trying to produce your own superstars, which in turn helps the National side.
English RL needs to lose this infatuation with overseas players.
As an Aussie myself, i am far more interested in watching Tom Lineham & Kallum Watkins than some 3rd rate Aussie/Kiwi.

None of those overseas players presently here are mentioned in my post, the criteria i want is origin level etc

Instead of spending millions on overseas stars we should be investing in youth, keeping our own stars and raiding Union. Which we did to some success in the 80/90's.

I agree we need some exemptions. Not sure it would work as you suggest though...how would you keep Tomkins under that system? Sell him to Union then buy him back?

Raiding Union would cost just as many millions unfortuately.

True, but at least they'd be able to represent the international sides.

Raising the salary cap on its own won't help. The currency exchange will see to that.

There are going to be plenty of opportunities for English players to play with the best in the world.They will pay in NRL.

Another club could sign him. Salford maybe.

So if you have say "international players don't count to the cap" all that happens is Leeds & Wigan buy the best players and we are back to the same pre-Superleague debacle

The BIGGEST single block to signing marquee players from Aus is the refusal of Aus, SOO and now Kiwi selectors to pick Super League players for internationals, any player worth his salt wouldn't want to risk that

Players like Lyons and Monaghan only came to SL cos they got sacked...

What about a crazy idea of giving teams a seasonal option of going over the salary cap ceiling based on last seasons league position.

Wigan would only be allowed to spend this season at current cap level for finishing top.
Wire get to spend 7% over the limit for finishing 2nd
3rd 14%
4th 21%
5th 28%
6th 35%
7th 42%
8th 49%
--------- bit of a jump for teams outside playoffs
9th 63%
10th 70%
11th 77%
12th 84 %
13th 91 %
14th 100%

They don't have to spend it but the limit option is there, could stop teams running away with things season after season and means any big players would be shared around.

Er no.

I did say crazy

Warrington have a very classy team with stacks of top players whilst playing under the SC

Maybe the problem is how the other clubs use the available money

Well it's long been an issue that struggling clubs can't attract top players no matter how much money they offer

Indeed it might be a top flight player would go to say Wigan for less then they could get at Salford

I dont really agree with that because i think one of the benefits of it would be that players in or about the fringe of being 'marquee' would be more likely to move from a big to a smaller club if those smaller clubs were offering 'marquee' contracts. At Leeds for instance we Have Hall, Burrow, Mcguire, Sinfield on the top 4 contracts, There is Watkins and Hardaker who should be getting close. At least one of those couldnt be offered a marquee contract by Leeds. But i can't imagine Salford would have trouble offering one.

Rewards failure.

Not sure how that system would work either really, a club could only really spend the salary cap and then bolster the squad with a couple of 1 year signings as you wouldn't know what you could spend in year 2 or 3.
The only way that kind of system could work really is by taking an average of a clubs league position over 3 or so years, and then saying for the next 3 or so years a club could spend so much more than the cap.
But I still wouldn't be in favour of it.